Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(22,974 posts)
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 06:17 PM Jun 2016

TIME: Why Hillary Clinton’s Foreign Policy Speech Wasn’t the One She Needed to Give

She needs to speak to the people, not the establishment

Hillary Clinton delivered a solid, well-crafted foreign policy speech today, and she did it very effectively. But this wasn’t the speech she needed to give.

First, her remarks were intended for the foreign policy establishment, the people who care about foreign policy details and America’s role in the world. These are not the people she needs to reach. She must speak directly to those who feel globalization has stolen their livelihoods and don’t see why Americans must carry heavier and more expensive burdens than others do. Some of those people are persuadable.

Second, she spent too much presenting herself as the plausible alternative to disaster. Her own foreign policy record is not sterling. She was an active secretary of state, but President Obama didn’t deliver his finest foreign policy accomplishments—striking the Iran nuclear deal, lifting the embargo against Cuba, negotiating the Transpacific Partnership—until Clinton had moved on. She deserves credit for helping to bring Iran to the nuclear negotiating table, but it fell to her successor to complete the deal. Her attempt to “reset” relations with Russia was a farce from start to finish. The “pivot to Asia” and agreement on the Transpacific Partnership were her biggest successes, but she has backed away from both while running for president. In short, Clinton is long on foreign policy experience, but short on foreign policy successes.

15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TIME: Why Hillary Clinton’s Foreign Policy Speech Wasn’t the One She Needed to Give (Original Post) tabasco Jun 2016 OP
This kind of sums her up on nearly everything though: Jarqui Jun 2016 #1
Clinton is good at looking good. Raster Jun 2016 #2
That's a very good description calguy Jun 2016 #3
I don't agree with that Jarqui Jun 2016 #5
They Nailed It pmorlan1 Jun 2016 #11
Trans-Pacific Partnership Will Be Obama’s Greatest Foreign Policy Achievement - from the same writer msongs Jun 2016 #4
Interesting flip flop on the writers part! Bought off by Weaver? bettyellen Jun 2016 #6
Where's the flip-flop? tabasco Jun 2016 #10
I didn't read the comments before posting the same link. NCTraveler Jun 2016 #8
Ian Bremmer is a Neo Con. amandabeech Jun 2016 #12
good point, Amandabeech /nt trudyco Jun 2016 #14
Thank you! n/t amandabeech Jun 2016 #15
Love the way he quotes himself. NCTraveler Jun 2016 #7
She went after Trump with all guns firing. kstewart33 Jun 2016 #9
Interesting subtext here: The establishment press is growing more critical of Hillary, in case... reformist2 Jun 2016 #13


(10,131 posts)
1. This kind of sums her up on nearly everything though:
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 06:26 PM
Jun 2016
"Clinton is long on foreign policy experience, but short on foreign policy successes."

She talks about being one who gets things done ... until you ask folks what she has actually got done. It's a long resume very short on actual significant legislative accomplishment driven by her.


(20,998 posts)
2. Clinton is good at looking good.
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 06:31 PM
Jun 2016

Her political resume is analogous to an A+ term paper written by smart guy for rich kid. Rich kid gets the good grade and looks like he knows the material, when in reality rich kid knows very little.


(5,354 posts)
3. That's a very good description
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 06:32 PM
Jun 2016

for Bernie's record in Congress!
A lot of years, little if any accomplishments.


(10,131 posts)
5. I don't agree with that
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 06:43 PM
Jun 2016

Sanders was known as the amendment king and got more amendments through than anyone else during his periods in congress. He also contributed more in legislation than he gets official credit for because he was an independent and they passed off his stuff to others in the Dem party. He didn't care as long as the legislation got done.

He passed more amendments in Republican controlled congresses than anyone. Hillary passed zero amendments during her time in congress.

How Bernie Gets Things Done in Congress Without Being Bought Off
Unlike Clinton, who courts corporations, Sanders isn't afraid to stray from the pack for his principles

Throughout his career, Mr. Sanders stood in opposition to many egregious legislative blunders now retrospectively viewed as mistakes. He voted against the disastrous trade deal, NAFTA, in 1993 and was one of the earliest voices of opposition against the TPP—which doubles down on many of NAFTA’s fallacies. Mr. Sanders was one of 67 legislators who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 and against the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military policy in 1993. He also voted against the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, and helped secure billions in funding under the Affordable Care Act for community health services.

From the above, his judgment on issues blows away Hillary's - no contest.


(2,096 posts)
11. They Nailed It
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 07:11 PM
Jun 2016
Clinton is long on foreign policy experience, but short on foreign policy successes.



(30,481 posts)
8. I didn't read the comments before posting the same link.
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 06:51 PM
Jun 2016

Part way through he quotes himself. It threw me for a loop. Lol



(9,893 posts)
12. Ian Bremmer is a Neo Con.
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 07:11 PM
Jun 2016

The people at the Wall Street Journal and the Economist love him. He's on Fareed Zakaria's CNN Sunday talk show.

He never smiles, but always has this world-weary look that everyone seems to take as the height of sophistication.

The TPP really hands it to corporate and financial interests, but it is also the gift that will keep on giving to the military industrial complex.

The TPP does not include China, but it does now include countries that send their exports through the South China Sea. In fact, it will encourage more investment in those economies by the US and its allies.

But guess who claims almost the entire South China Sea as its inland lake? China of course! And china has turned some coral reefs and mostly underwater islets into real islands, some now with military bases on them. Moreover, almost all the reefs and islets are also claimed by other countries like Vietnam, the Phillipines, Malaysia and Indonesia. Thailand and Cambodia ordinarilty export to the west and north through the South China Sea. We have a treaty obligation to defend the Phillipines from attack and the Chinese have been building up one of the reefs within the 200-mile Phillipine economic exclusion zone.

The Phillipines and maybe others want the issue of ownership of the South China Sea to be determined by a court at the Hague under the International Law of the Sea in a decision binding everyone. The Hague will rule on a Phillipine claim very soon. The Chinese have said that they will not abide by the ruling.

The TPP will bind us closer to the Phillipines and will encourage the US and its allies to buy from the other nations that will export to us through the South China Sea. Our military tends to follow our businesses. Thus, the TPP will likely pull us further into conflict with China over the South China Sea. We are already conducting "free navigation patrols" close to the Chinese-made islets. The Chinese haven't shot at us yet, but maybe they will. Then what?

I'm from Michigan, and I would prefer that manufacturing for the US market take place here for reasons including the fact that we will have to spend a lot of money defending the countries and the sea lanes from which we import everything in Wal Mart and Target. This is in addition to all the money in aid to people who used to be employed in manufacturing in cities like Flint and Detroit.

What do we do when our TPP friends insist that we defend the South China Sea against a hostile China? It's bad enough to be in thrall to China, but the TPP sets us up on both sides.

I have never heard Bremmer or anyone in print or on the tube discuss these problems! It seems that no one cares that we are in a bad place. The Chinese believe that they can defeat us and create a real East Asian Co-Prospherity Sphere like the Japanese tried to do in WWII. Unfortunately, the Chinese are not liked by many of their neighbors who are or will be in the TPP while at the same time, almost everything that we use in our homes is still made in China.

I would like to hear Hillary discuss how she plans to deal with this. I don't take for one moment that she will get rid of the TPP or any trade agreement. The Donald will either blast the bejesus out of the Chinese, or he'll tell everyone to take a hike, but who knows.

I'm waiting.


(6,551 posts)
9. She went after Trump with all guns firing.
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 06:54 PM
Jun 2016

Spoken calmly. It was bulls-eye, bulls-eye, bulls-eye.

That was the purpose of the speech. To launch her foreign policy assault on Trump.

How does backing away negate her biggest accomplishments?


(9,841 posts)
13. Interesting subtext here: The establishment press is growing more critical of Hillary, in case...
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 07:17 PM
Jun 2016

In case the "indictment fairy" does indeed strike. If such a thing does happen, the press will call for Hill to step aside.
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»TIME: Why Hillary Clinton...